Has support for Amaral and the Mccanns reached devotion by their supporters ?

[sadie]

What is the title of the thread sadie ?


Your support of the mccanns can easily be catergorized as obsessive.

 >@@(*&)

Try to remember your thread is about Amaral, Stephen

As you are clearly chickening out of giving an answer, it shows that
"You do NOT think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman"

Why dont you just say it and get it over?

[stephen25000]

Try to remember your thread is about Amaral, Stephen

As you are clearly chickening out of giving an answer, it shows that
"You do NOT think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman"

Why dont you just say it and get it over?

sadie, you exhibit the classic symptoms associated with support of the Mccanns.

Inability to read the thread title, about 'devotion' to amaral or mccanns.

Blind backing of the Mccanns.

Attacking Amaral.

i.e you are clearly demonstrating in full the title of the thread. >@@(*&)

[Aiofe]

sadie, you exhibit the classic symptoms associated with support of the Mccanns.

Inability to read the thread title, about 'devotion' to amaral or mccanns.

Blind backing of the Mccanns.

Attacking Amaral.

i.e you are clearly demonstrating in full the title of the thread. >@@(*&)

You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.

Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.

[stephen25000]

You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.

Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.

I was waiting for that.

You like giving orders.

P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's  question base on her obsession, and her compatriotsBV  with amaral.
.

[stephen25000]

You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.

Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.

I anticipated your response.

Cornered by facts ?

As I have stated before, you are and never have been neutral in this case. Your stance fools no one.

P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's  question base on her obsession, and her compatriots,  with amaral.

He is the fall guy both for the Mccanns and people such as you.

If it hadn't been him, someone else would have been the target.

[Aiofe]

'If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.'

Do you give credence to that theory ?

P.S. As they were left alone, assuming nothing happened before that evening, then the prime cause of her disappearance is the fact the parents weren't there. What happened afterwards is probably something we will never know.

Just seen your edit.

You do not understand what a Prime Cause is. A prime cause is an event that of itself ensured that the event happened. Events that merely make it possible for an event to happen are subsidiary causes.

For example, if (to lower the temperature of debate) there was a theft a holiday apartment resulting in the loss of valuables, the causative chain would be:

Events of the people from birth to-
Deciding to go on holiday
Deciding to be at that place on holiday
Going there
Deciding to go out to dinner that night
Failing to put the valuables in the safe in the room
Leaving the lights out
Not locking the door
(up to this point all are subsidiary causes)
Thief enters the room and steals the valuables.
(this is the prime cause)

All the subsidiary causes could happen (may have happened on previous nights) without the theft occurring. The primary cause is that event that is necessary for the theft to occur.

The only case in which their abandonment was a prime cause would be woke and wandered if we accept that a three year old is not the only cause of their behaviour.

The only possible Prime causes of Madeleine's disappearance are that of the example above, an unknown abductor, or harm from a family member followed by a cover up.

Leaving the children alone was an error but can never be the Prime cause of abduction or cover up.

[Aiofe]

I anticipated your response.

Cornered by facts ?

As I have stated before, you are and never have been neutral in this case. Your stance fools no one.

P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's  question base on her obsession, and her compatriots,  with amaral.

He is the fall guy both for the Mccanns and people such as you.

If it hadn't been him, someone else would have been the target.

So we shall assume that your failure to give Amaral your full backing means that you have reservations about him personally or his methods. Question answered by avoidance. Thank you.

[stephen25000]

So we shall assume that your failure to give Amaral your full backing means that you have reservations about him personally or his methods. Question answered by avoidance. Thank you.

Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.

Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?

I await your answer.

[Aiofe]

Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.

Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?

I await your answer.

I have already answered. You will not like it when you find it as it does not fir your biased view of me. Go look.

[Aiofe]

Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.

Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?

I await your answer.

I see you are ignoring the information about Prime Causes and subsidiary causes. No answer, eh!

[Aiofe]

I see you are ignoring the information about Prime Causes and subsidiary causes. No answer, eh!

As Stepen is too stubborn, to forgetful or too lazy to find my previous response to the status of the McCanns, I give him this reference:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2930.msg102680#msg102680

[stephen25000]

As Stepen is too stubborn, to forgetful or too lazy to find my previous response to the status of the McCanns, I give him this reference:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2930.msg102680#msg102680

Read it already.

it is of no consequence whatsoever.

Honourable people do not place their children at risk from unnecessary danger.

[stephen25000]

I have already answered. You will not like it when you find it as it does not fir your biased view of me. Go look.

my view of you is based on your comments, as is yours of me.

[stephen25000]

Just seen your edit.

You do not understand what a Prime Cause is. A prime cause is an event that of itself ensured that the event happened. Events that merely make it possible for an event to happen are subsidiary causes.

For example, if (to lower the temperature of debate) there was a theft a holiday apartment resulting in the loss of valuables, the causative chain would be:

Events of the people from birth to-
Deciding to go on holiday
Deciding to be at that place on holiday
Going there
Deciding to go out to dinner that night
Failing to put the valuables in the safe in the room
Leaving the lights out
Not locking the door
(up to this point all are subsidiary causes)
Thief enters the room and steals the valuables.
(this is the prime cause)

All the subsidiary causes could happen (may have happened on previous nights) without the theft occurring. The primary cause is that event that is necessary for the theft to occur.

The only case in which their abandonment was a prime cause would be woke and wandered if we accept that a three year old is not the only cause of their behaviour.

The only possible Prime causes of Madeleine's disappearance are that of the example above, an unknown abductor, or harm from a family member followed by a cover up.

Leaving the children alone was an error but can never be the Prime cause of abduction or cover up.

Leaving the children was not an 'error'. It was appalling.

It was repeated for several successive nights.

If Madeleine's disappearance followed her parents absence, it was the primary cause of subsequent events.

[jassi]

The assumption that they have special powers of divination that allows them to know things with insufficient evidence.

Thanks. 
What I wrote was not that they perhaps 'knew', but that they might 'believe they knew', which is not quite the same thing. I recognise that investigations can go down a wrong track because officers become fixated with a particular theory.